The only way a quantum theory of gravity is going to fly is by using extra dimensions decaying to gravitons.
The atmosphere around pulsed microwave radar towers is donating protons and dissolving limestone, I have 50 years of data in Florida pointing to it around multiple towers. Our "weather" phenom are really low pressure vacuum disturbances, not just hot and cold We are in a push-me pull-me with the vacuum our entire lives. We should go from cosmology---->meteorology---->geology and connect the dots. Jet Streams cause Earthquakes as well as Hurricanes. Jet streams anomalies as possible short-term precursors of earthquakes with M>6.0 http://www.pagepress.org/journals/index.php/rg/article/view/rg.2014.4939 Stewart On Sunday, April 13, 2014, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > To continue with the argument that chemical energy from hydrogen can be > thermodynamically "overunity" without violating Conservation of Energy > principles, and without any nuclear reaction - due to the ubiquity of > interfacial positronium (the Dirac epo field at the interface of 3-space) > there is an old subject that keeps cropping up - the "water arc > explosion." > Mills' recent demo, a blatant knockoff of the Graneau ongoing work of > twenty > years, shows this route to gain. > > The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule > of H2O - which is both higher than can be achieved in practice and > significantly higher than the energy required to split water catalytically. > In short there is a large asymmetric energy gap which can be exploited in > practice, and which is seen in a re-evaluation of the thermodynamics of > Langmuir's torch, and which anomaly continues all the way to LENR, even > when > water is not used. > > Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to > form two molecules of H2O. Energetically, the process requires very high > initial energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, which is actually greater by > far > than the net yield. This required energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 is > about eight times higher than required for splitting water. This is one > basis for reports of "water fuel" and "Brown's gas" and HHO, going back to > Dad Garrett in the Thirties > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg14027.html > > Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only > returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if > the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the > range of COP >2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be > illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif > > We should also appreciate that 1.23 volts is the threshold required to > split > a proton from water using an electrolyte, but it is electrical potential - > not mass energy, whereas 2.85 eV as a calculated chemical gain is > mass-energy. And it is based on the assumption that it requires 9.7 eV net > to dissociate the gases - which is far from true with a spillover catalyst > like nickel. Anyway, one can calculate eV from volts by multiplying > elementary charge (coulombs); since the energy (eV) is equal to the voltage > V times the electric charge, the value of both is the same per atom when > there is no recombination. > > Thus, the standard way of accounting for energy balance in hydrogen redox > chemistry may not seem to "hold water" especially in circumstances where > there is spillover-type catalysis, or plasma, and where most of the heat of > a (predecessor) reaction is retained in a sequence, without recombination. > The only thing holding us back is the notion of conservation of energy. > That > is where positronium enters the picture. > > We are not talking about antimatter annihilation - only capturing the > binding energy of 6.8 eV of positronium or part of it - which can be done > when any proton is split-off and "made nascent" near the threshold > requirement of 1.23 volts per unit of charge in an electron-starved > environment. In this case, the electron from Ps is available instead of the > free electron from 3-space. A bare proton at Angstrom geometry is as close > to one dimensional as possible - and exists at the interface of 3-space > with > reciprocal space (Dirac's term) until it grabs the electron from somewhere > - > such as from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. > > A UV photon comes along with the electron and there is evidence that two > photons of 3.4 eV are shed in this reaction and one of them follows the > electron. The coupling is electrostatic by proximity at the interface of > 3-space to another dimension. "Virtual" positronium is "real" positronium > at > the one-dimensional interface for an instant. In fact, this time limit is > critical, and seems to limit the ratio of gain (when figured this way) to > something less than 3.4/1.23 = 2.76 which is the maximum COP available per > pass. > > The problem of achieving net gain (in excess of chemical but less than > nuclear) is twofold. First challenge is simply to remove heat to prevent a > runaway, but not remove too much heat, so that the residual, which provides > the energy required for continuity, is not compromised. The second is to > avoid recombination losses. This is what Rossi appears to have accomplished > catalytically with the E-Cat. > > Yet, it is arguable that with gain > 1, it should be possible to avoid any > power input at all - which results in infinite COP. That is partly true, > but if there is an absolute need for a threshold of thermal momentum - from > continuously applied heat, added heat must be provided if it cannot be > retained. The added heat is to provide the kind of solid floor for phonon > coherence which is never possible with insulation alone. Since runaway is > possible, one cannot solve the problem by supplying a large temperature > cushion above the threshold. It is a razor edge and both negative feedback > and positive feedback are juxtaposed. > > That is the basis for the non-nuclear argument, and its main claim to fame > is extending the insight of Dirac, the greatest mind of the modern era. > > You may not agree with this explanation, especially in the case of Rossi's > E-Cat, since his own nuclear explanation is vastly different - but this one > is falsifiable and his explanation is already invalidated. The UV photon > flux at 3.4 eV (365 nm) should be the key - and if a strong peak at this > value turns up in the Rossi device - then it furthers the case that > interfacial positronium is responsible for a part, or all of the net gain. > > There are those who would call this a Zero Point explanation, instead of a > Dirac explanation, and there is no problem with that characterization > either. In both cases we must invoke a field which is not in 3-space. That > is the main obstacle since outside of cosmology, an extra dimension(s) is > not an easy sell. > > Jones > > > > > >
